Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. Gunwalking

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Tzars, and other unelected "officials".

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: Small arms treaty.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: ACA anyone.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. Amnesty

Is SCOTUS the defacto law of the land? Quick answer, NO! Although in past decades Progressive New Left Activists have seen in SCOTUS an enabling source of skirting both popular votes and Constitutional “Rule of Law!”A legal avenue for curtailing SCOTUS’ out-of-control wielding of ever expanding power exists in the US Constitution. Let’s review some historical data points. Two important sources of SCOTUS’ case load consists of:1) original jurisdiction,i.e., cases originating before the SCOTUS and 2)the high court’s appellate jurisdiction,i.e., cases originating in appellate courts(which is by and large SCOTUS’ case load, year in and year out). The US Constitution stipulates precisely how SCOTUS’ exercising excessive powers, can be reined in. First of all, there is precedent for this in an obscure 1869 case titled: Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506[1869]! Specifically, in The Constitution’s Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 gives SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction which means cases initially tried in state and/or lower federal courts and then appealed to the high court:” In all the other cases before mentioned [in Article III, section 2, paragraph 2, first sentence] the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and in Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Only a very small part of SCOTUS’ case load is original jurisdiction. Most of its cases, especially those engendering the most controversy, come from the high court’s appellate jurisdiction. See, the Framers didn’t anticipate the judiciary becoming this pre-eminent power and branch of government. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist #78 says as much. All Framers conception of federal courts and their powers as “being the least dangerous to the Rights of the Constitution” and as having a “natural feebleness.” . Here is Alexander Hamilton’s line of thinking:1)First, when judging a legislative act to be contrary to the Constitution, the court would acknowledge the supremacy of the people, who were the Constitution’s ultimate bulwark 2)Second, Hamilton implied that courts would judge only legislative acts; he wrote nothing about reviewing executive decisions. So, where did “judicial review” come into SCOTUS’ picture? It was in 1801 with John Adam’s nomination of Secretary of State John Marshall who later filed a law suit (in 1803) titled “Marbury v. Madison” asserting the principle of “judicial review” claiming that SCOTUS is the final arbiter on the Constitution’s meaning, catapulting SCOTUS to preeminence. Today. Washington DC Elites regard unelected judges as the law’s final arbiters. Congress has the power to restrict SCOTUS’ appellate jurisdiction, will they do it? Not likely! Congress can curtail SCOTUS’ original jurisdiction with a Constitutional Amendment, will they do it? Not likely! But, SCOTUS did acknowledge Congress’s power to limit it’s appellate jurisdiction in the Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506[1869] decision!!!! Question: will House Republican’s be willing to entertain a frontal attack on SCOTUS, opening the door for a possible Constitutional crisis? Answer, We The People have been wronged by “judicial activists” long enough! The Constitution allows for this challenge to occur…is a responsible, though arduous action all Americans must entertain and embark upon! Pray. Amen. Join a Tea Party.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. Gunwalking

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Tzars, and other unelected "officials".

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: Small arms treaty.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: ACA anyone.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. Amnesty